closure checklist & closure citation guidelines · ndep, petroleum in soils closure checklists,...

Closure Checklist & Closure Citation Guidelines

NDEP, Petroleum in Soils Closure Checklists, June 2014 Page 1 of 6

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection Bureau of Corrective Action

Petroleum in Soils Closure Checklists June 2014

Statement of Purpose “The purpose of this document and the attached checklists is to clearly define all options and requirements for closure under Nevada’s Corrective Action regulations for sites that have soil contamination resulting from releases of petroleum. It has been drafted to assist property owners, environmental consultants, and NDEP case officers in making informed decisions about petroleum cleanups, to promote consistency in closure decisions, and to make petroleum cleanups efficient and protective.”

Introduction In 2009, the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Corrective Actions (NDEP)

amended its site cleanup regulations at NAC 445A.226 to 445A.22755 and removed its longstanding numeric soil action level for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH). The soil action level for TPH of 100 mg/kg was originally established as part of the leaking underground storage tank program and was later included for all sites under corrective action. No other hazardous substances were given specific, numeric action levels in regulation. Hazardous substances other than petroleum relied on risk-based decision making to address these substances on a site- and chemical-specific basis. The removal of the numeric standard in 2009 was intended to place petroleum in the same risk-based decision making framework as all other hazardous substances.

Having a single action level for TPH did not accurately reflect the wide range of petroleum products that may require site cleanup, and the use of the action level as a default cleanup standard often led to costly cleanups that did not consider site risks. As defined in statute, “petroleum” refers to a range of petroleum mixtures and formulations which are liquid at standard temperature and pressure and includes crude oil, diesel, heating oil, gasoline, mineral oil, or any other formulation. Each formulation may behave differently when released to the environment based on their composition, mobility, volatility, and persistence. Each formulation also consists of constituents with different toxicities and exposure risks. The 100 mg/kg action level was established to ensure protectiveness for the petroleum formulations that presented the greatest risk to human health. This resulted in releases of less mobile and less toxic formulations being held to a restrictive standard.

Not only is the use of a single action level hindered by the range of formulations that falls under the regulatory definition of “petroleum” but also by the fact that each formulation of petroleum is itself a mixture of many constituent hydrocarbon molecules. The 100 mg/kg petroleum action level in regulation was based on analysis of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH). This approach does not differentiate between individual petroleum constituents. Analysis of total petroleum hydrocarbons may not provide an accurate reflection of site risks because it does not differentiate between the constituents that serve as risk-drivers based on the toxicity and mobility of constituents with known health effects.


The NDEP decided to deemphasize the 100 mg/kg TPH in soil action level at corrective action sites by eliminating that numeric value from the regulations; however, the NDEP has not eliminated it as a pathway to closure for sites with petroleum contamination. Rather, the use of a single numeric action level has been placed alongside a number of equally valid pathways to closure that can be considered by owners or operators of property where a petroleum release has occurred. All closure options discussed in this document are fully supported by the corrective action regulations at Nevada Administrative Code 445A.226 to 445A.22755. This document is intended to identify and describe all options for closure so that an owner or operator may select an approach that best meets their available resources, timeframes, and intentions.

At this time, this document only addresses corrective actions involving petroleum. Corrective actions involving other hazardous substances follow the same regulations and many of the same considerations, but this document is specific to petroleum and to the issues related to petroleum hydrocarbons. Some assumptions about the mobility and biodegradation of petroleum may not be applicable to other hazardous substances. While the general precepts about corrective action and site closure under Nevada regulations have wide applicability and can be used as a guide for all soil cleanups, specific determinations for petroleum cleanups should not be applied to other cleanups without chemical-specific consideration by property owners, consultants, and NDEP case officers.

Additionally, this document is intended for use at sites with soil contamination only. The NDEP will not provide closure of a site until all contaminated media have been adequately addressed; however, the soil-specific focus of this document may not be applicable at sites with both soil and groundwater contamination.

Document Overview The substance of this document is the checklists, tables, and technical papers located in the appendices. These are tools to help NDEP case officers make consistent, defensible closure determinations for petroleum releases. They are also intended to communicate requirements for soil closure to property owners and environmental consultants. The next few sections of this document describe some of the decision-making for determining the appropriate closure method and provide justification for the general requirements applicable to all sites.

The Four Closure Options For any Corrective Action project it is critical to identify an endpoint or goal that can guide site cleanup decisions. To assist owners and operators the NDEP has identified four endpoints in its corrective action regulations for sites with soil contaminated by petroleum. Each of the four closure options relies on a few different regulatory citation and has different requirements for demonstration, but all options are available and equally valid for use at all sites. This section is intended to introduce the four closure options and to provide general comparisons between them. The comparisons are intended to assist property owners and operators make a determination about their preferred approach to site cleanup since each closure option may have its own benefits or drawbacks. The NDEP does not dictate which closure option is appropriate for sites but determines whether requirements have been satisfied. The four closure options are


1) Clean Closure: all confirmation samples (using analytical EPA Method 8015 modified) at the site are below 100 mg/kg for TPH. This is the reportable concentration that has been set for TPH by the NDEP as generally posing an acceptable level of risk for all exposure scenarios.

2) Analyte-Specific Closure: all confirmation samples show that petroleum hydrocarbon constituents are below default screening levels established by the NDEP to be protective of direct contact exposure and leaching to groundwater. Constituents to be screened are selected based on their toxicity (both cancer and non-cancer hazards) and presence in petroleum formulations.

3) A-thru-K Closure: concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons and petroleum constituents above screening levels may be left in place based on a site-specific analysis of the A-thru-K factors listed in the corrective action regulations to show that known residual concentrations are still protective even if they are above action levels.

4) ASTM RBCA Closure: all concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons and constituents are below Site Specific Target Levels established through a Tier II or Tier III analysis conducted consistent with the ASTM Risk-Based Corrective Action method E1739-95 or equivalent.

The ordering of the closure options is not intended to convey agency preference. Rather, the closure options are presented as a continuum, from options that rely more on cleanup and removal of soil to options that rely more on modeling or calculation of site risks. There are many factors that weigh into an owner or operator’s decision about the best pathway to closure. Among the many considerations are costs for assessment and cleanup; project turnaround time; long-term liability and continuing obligations; future site uses; technical knowledge and sophistication required to achieve closure; level of regulatory involvement and the likelihood of findings of deficiencies by case officers; and property ownership issues. Each closure option represents a balance of these factors: some closure options may have a lower cleanup cost that comes at the expense of longer project times or greater continuing obligations, while others may favor swift resolution of issues through excavation with little or no requirement for regulatory review of protectiveness determinations.

The most fundamental balancing factor amongst the closure options is the level of effort for assessment versus cleanup necessary to achieve regulatory concurrence. Generally, sites that achieve closure through excavation or treatment will require fewer resources for assessment and vice versa. Excavation and/or treatment of contaminated soils can represent a significant portion of project costs; however, the costs of assessment, calculations, and modeling should not be discounted. Making a defensible argument that residual petroleum contamination can remain in place above action levels involve variable costs depending on the size of the project, regulatory scrutiny, land use assumptions, and site conditions. In most instances, at small sites the costs of excavation and disposal will generally be lower than the cost to make a defensible argument to leave the contamination in place. As the volume and depth of contamination increases, the cost of excavation, disposal and/or treatment will begin to exceed the costs of leaving it in place.

There may be other factors besides cost which influence an owner or operator’s decision about an appropriate closure approach. Closure approaches that rely on excavation and disposal are generally quicker than other approaches. If a site cleanup is under a time deadline because of property transfer or construction, then additional costs for excavation and disposal of soils may be less important than the time it takes to obtain a no further action determination from the NDEP. An owner’s long-term liability or continuing obligations to maintain the protectiveness of leaving residual contamination in place may


be another consideration that is prioritized above cleanup cost. Because determinations to leave residual contamination in place usually involve assumptions about land use and nearby populations, these closures might be reevaluated in the future if assumptions change, or they may need to rely on the protection of an environmental covenant; this can represent an unacceptable continuing obligation or liability for a property owner, who may elect to avoid these obligations or liabilities by undertaking additional cleanup. Also, individuals who are undertaking corrective action on property that they do not own may be constrained by the desires of the property owner for a specific level of cleanup.

1) Clean Closure: cleanup proceeds until confirmation samples show that TPH is below 100 mg/kg. Cleanup costs are higher because less residual contamination is left behind, but the assessment and analytical costs are lower for TPH analyses and there is less l ikelihood of regulatory determinations requiring additional information for closure.2) Analyte-Specific Closure: cleanup proceeds until confirmation samples show that constituents are below action levels even while residual TPH contamination remains. Assessment costs are higher because the laboratory analyses are more costly, residential vs. industrial exposures must be addressed, and accurate volatile results must be obtained.3) A thru K Closure: residual petroleum contamination above action levels may be left in place through a site-specific demonstration of protectiveness. Protectiveness must be demonstrated through site characterization and defensible arguments of fate and transport. Assumptions may need to be controlled by land use restrictions.4) ASTM RBCA Closure: site-specific target levels are developed for a site through risk-based calculations of fate, transport, and toxicity. The process is fully laid out in ASTM standards but requires site-specific inputs for calculations. Assumptions may need to be controlled by land use restriction.

General relationship between closure types and the level of effort for both assessment and cleanup to achieve closure

Assessment &

Calculations

Excavation & Treatm

ent

It should be noted that once an owner or operator selects a closure option and a corrective action approach, he or she is not irreversibly tied to that closure option or approach, since corrective action sites might evolve as more information is collected. For instance, a property owner who decides that clean closure is the appropriate goal may make a different decision later in the project if significantly more contamination is discovered or if excavation becomes difficult because of utilities or overlying structures. Corrective Action Plans will need to be amended to incorporate revised approaches, but the NDEP will not hold a property owner or operator to a specific cleanup as long as another viable approach to closure is presented.

General Provisions for All Closures Each of the closure options has different requirements that must be demonstrated to allow the

NDEP to provide a “No Further Action” letter to a property owner or operator; however, there are some requirements that are common to all closure decisions made by the NDEP. These requirements have


been identified as general provisions that apply to all soil corrective action cases regardless of which closure option is being pursued: General Provision #1 – Ongoing Releases Addressed

All continuing inputs of petroleum contamination to the soil being addressed by corrective action shall be identified and eliminated prior to closure. This includes ongoing releases from underground storage tanks and associated piping; discharges from drains and washouts; leaks from barrels or aboveground tanks; and etc. This provision does not, in itself, create an obligation for an owner or operator to address any other potential sources of petroleum that may result in future releases or to address any sources not directly related to the contamination being addressed by corrective action. General Provision #2 – Abatement

Closure decisions are made on residual concentrations that remain in soil after actions are taken to respond to the release of petroleum. None of the closure options are intended to relieve an owner or operator from the obligation to take abatement actions in response to releases of petroleum, such as the removal of released product and the excavation of grossly impacted soil. In instances where historic contamination is discovered, there may no longer be any product or grossly impacted soil present, and this provision for abatement may not apply. General Provision #3 – Complete Characterization

Closure shall be provided only with a full understanding of contaminant delineation. This includes knowledge of the depth and lateral extent of soil contamination as well as a general understanding of the location and volume of the areas with the highest remaining concentrations of petroleum (and petroleum constituents, as appropriate). Closure will also be dependent on a full understanding of exposure pathways relevant to the site including pathways and rates of migration for contaminants and awareness of any potential receptors. General Provision #4 – Aesthetics

While site closure is granted by the NDEP based on health-based standards and/or determinations in accordance with Nevada statutes and regulations, the consideration of aesthetic factors will assist in ensuring closure decisions are not reopened. Any visible staining or odoriferous soil left at or near the surface, even if the release was closed using health-based standards, may result in future notification by the public, adjacent property owners, or future operators to the NDEP as an apparent release, which could result in the reopening of a case. The NDEP recommends a minimum of one (1) foot of clean material be present, where feasible, over any underlying residual contamination that remains in-place at closure to address potential aesthetic concerns. The NDEP may also recommend additional actions to address aesthetic concerns. General Provision #5 – Imported Fill Is Consistent With Closure Conditions

Any fill material that is imported to the site as a component of corrective action to fill excavations, restore grades, or cap residual contamination must meet closure criteria for the site, which


may be required to be demonstrated at NDEP’s discretion. Property owners/operators and CEMs are also cautioned that use of fill containing hazardous substances above reporting limits established in NAC 445A.347 can be considered a separate reportable release for the site.

Using the Closure Checklists Closure checklists (Appendix A) have been developed to summarize and condense the general

provisions and closure-specific requirements for cases with petroleum contamination in soil. The general closure provisions, applicable for all cases, need to be satisfied to allow the case officer to advance towards closure. If any of these general closure provisions is not satisfied for a given site, the case officer is instructed to work with an owner or operator to resolve the deficiency prior to providing closure. For the closure-specific checklists, only one of the separate checklists must be completed. If an owner or operator cannot satisfy the requirements of a particular checklist, one of the other closure options may be applicable.

Appendix B contains tables developed by the NDEP that provide greater detail for specific closure types as referenced in the checklists in Appendix A.

Appendix C contains a technical paper published by the American Petroleum Institute that is referenced in several of the closure-specific checklists.


Petroleum in Soils Closure Checklists

Appendix A Checklists

NDEP, Petroleum in Soils Closure Checklists, General Closure Provisions Page 1 of 3

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection Petroleum in Soils Closure Checklists

General Closure Provisions

Facility Name: Case Officer:

Facility ID:

Date:

In order to achieve closure for a site where petroleum has been released to the soil or where petroleum has been discovered in soils as a result of subsurface investigation, a facility owner/operator must be able to demonstrate that these five general closure conditions have been satisfied. A case officer should use his or her best professional judgment to determine whether information provided by the facility owner/operator is sufficient to make a determination and to check off the “Satisfied” box. A set of general guidelines to help a case officer make a decision is included for each provision. A case officer may fill out the “Notes:” section to provide a brief justification for the determination, if warranted.

General Closure Provision#1—Ongoing Releases Satisfied □ Not Satisfied □ Requirement: All continuing inputs of contamination to the soil (directly related to the corrective action case) have been identified and controlled to prevent redeposition of contaminants after closure. Some things to look for when determining that the “Ongoing Releases” provision is Satisfied • The release was a one-time, accidental event such as mobile source releases, gas station overfills, and etc. that does not represent a potential on-going source. • If leak is from an active regulated UST, all compliance issues related to release prevention and leak detection have been resolved or are being actively overseen by the appropriate UST compliance group.

• If the release occurred at a facility with a water pollution control permit or a RCRA waste generation permit, the facility owner or operator has resolved all permit compliance issues arising from the release.

• If the release was from a fixed source container that is not regulated by another program (i.e., aboveground storage tanks), the facility owner or operator has taken steps to prevent future releases.

• If the release source is not known, the facility owner or operator has provided adequate documentation to demonstrate that there are no on-going sources to the contamination.

Notes: _______________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

Recommended next steps: _______________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________


General Closure Provision #2—Abatement Satisfied □ Not Satisfied □ Requirement: Appropriate abatement actions were taken in response to the release to prevent further degradation, and closure decisions are being made on residual soil contamination only.

Some things to look for when determining that the “Abatement” provision is Satisfied • If the case was the result of a release to the ground, the owner or operator conducted abatement and/or cleanup prior to applying action levels or pursuing a risk-based closure.

• The case was the result of discovery of subsurface contamination, and the owner or operator pursues a risk-based closure after reducing the volume or concentration of contaminants remaining in place.

• If the NDEP used EMAR or other sources of funding to address an imminent and substantial hazard at the site or another government agency expended funds to address hazards that are recoverable through regulation, cost recovery has been resolved with the owner or operator. Notes: _______________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________


____________________________________________________________________________________

General Closure Provision #3—Characterization Satisfied □ Not Satisfied □ Requirement: Site decisions were made with an understanding of contaminant makeup, location, concentrations, and exposure pathways.

Some things to look for when determining that the “Characterization” provision is Satisfied • Vertical delineation of soil contamination has been determined with either non-detect samples at depths below the contamination, a data set showing clear decreasing trends of contaminants at depth (approaching action levels or other acceptable concentrations under a risk-based closure), or samples from the soil column all the way to the top of the water table.

• Lateral delineation of soil contamination has been determined by surface sampling, sidewall sampling, or other exploratory sampling (drilling, boreholes, and etc.).

• For sites with multiple release sources or commingled soil contamination, vertical and lateral delineation has been achieved for all sources or areas of contamination.

• Density of confirmation samples is adequate to make an informed decision (e.g. equal to or greater than the regulatory minimum established for a UST excavation or an equivalent density for larger excavations).

Notes: _______________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________


____________________________________________________________________________________


General Closure Provision #4—Aesthetics Satisfied □ Not Satisfied □ Requirement: The release has been addressed such that site conditions will not likely result in the re-reporting of residual contamination by occupants, neighbors, or future owners based on visual or other aesthetic conditions.

Some things to look for when determining that the “Aesthetics” provision is Satisfied • Surface staining associated with remaining contaminants is not present in an area exceeding 4’ by 4’ after corrective action.

• Soils with contaminants near saturation are not present within 2 feet of ground surface after corrective action, as this would likely cause surface staining in the future as a result of capillary action.

• Odors from volatile constituents are not noticeable and persistent in adjacent structures after corrective actions.

• Excavations have been filled in, and the site is free of depressions that would promote ponding.

• Solid waste indirectly related to the release (such as vehicle wreckage at mobile source cases, solid wastes co-disposed with hazardous substances at illegal dumps, etc.) have been removed or addressed to end perception of release and to not promote future illegal disposal.

Notes: _______________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________


____________________________________________________________________________________

General Closure Provision #5—Imported Fill Satisfied □ Not Satisfied □ Requirement: Any material imported to the site as a component of corrective action to fill excavations, restore grades, or cap residual contaminants has either been demonstrated to be consistent with closure criteria or is not likely to be inconsistent with closure criteria.

Some things to look for when determining that the “Imported Fill” provision is Satisfied • Source of imported fill is discussed in the closure request and reasonably rules out the presence of hazardous substances, regulated substances, or hazardous waste.

• Sampling results are provided to reasonably rule out the presence of hazardous substances, regulated substances, or hazardous waste at concentrations inconsistent with site closure. Notes: _______________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________


____________________________________________________________________________________

NDEP, Petroleum in Soils Closure Checklists, “Clean Closure” Checklist Page 1 of 1


“Clean Closure” Checklist


Facility ID:

Date:

Clean Closure: all confirmation samples (using analytical EPA Method 8015 modified) at the site are below 100 mg/kg for TPH. This is the reportable concentration that has been set for TPH by the NDEP as generally posing an acceptable level of risk for all exposure scenarios.

Clean Closure Checklist All Requirements In Grey Must Be Met

____ Proper field sample collection procedures used Confirmation samples are taken as discrete samples and are collected and preserved using appropriate procedures to minimize loss of volatile constituents prior to analysis. ____ Proper laboratory analytical method used All confirmation samples are analyzed using EPA Method 8015 Modified for Petroleum Hydrocarbons ____ Proper laboratory sample preparation procedure used The laboratory preparation procedure is appropriate for the type of petroleum product released:

Gasoline—Purge and Trap Diesel and other mid-range products—Purge and Trap + Solvent Extraction Oil and other high-range products—Solvent Extraction Unknown—Purge and Trap + Solvent Extraction

____ Appropriate detection limit achieved The reported detection limit from the laboratory is less than 100 mg/kg for total petroleum hydrocarbons for all confirmation samples. ____ Action level for clean closure met in all confirmation samples All confirmation samples are below 100 mg/kg for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons. ____ Destruction certificates or disposal certificates provided for all excavated soil All soil above 100 mg/kg TPH that was excavated as a result of corrective action or abatement actions and that has been taken off-site for treatment or disposal has been accounted for with disposal or destruction certificates. If soil has been treated on-site and remains on-site in accordance with an approved corrective action plan, this requirement may be marked N/A and considered satisfied.

NDEP, Petroleum in Soils Closure Checklists, “Analyte-Specific Closure” Checklist Page 1 of 1

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection Petroleum in Soils Closure Checklists “Analyte-Specific Closure” Checklist


Facility ID:

Date:

Analyte-Specific Closure: all confirmation samples show that petroleum hydrocarbon constituents are below default screening levels established by the NDEP to be protective of direct contact exposure and leaching to groundwater. Constituents to be screened are selected based on their toxicity (both cancer and non-cancer hazards) and presence in petroleum formulations.

Analyte-Specific Closure Checklist All Requirements In Grey Must Be Met

____ Proper field sample collection procedures used Confirmation samples are taken as discrete samples and are collected and preserved using appropriate procedures to minimize loss of volatile constituents prior to analysis. ____ All contaminants of potential concern have been analyzed Confirmation samples contain analytical results for all contaminants of potential concern associated with the petroleum product released. The contaminants of potential concern are identified on Table 1 of Appendix B. If the petroleum product has not been identified, all constituents on the Table should be analyzed. ____ Proper laboratory analytical methods used All confirmation samples are analyzed using the appropriate laboratory method identified on Table 1 of Appendix B, and the laboratory has employed an appropriate sample preparation for the analytical method. ____ Appropriate detection limit achieved The reported detection limit from the laboratory is below the screening level for all constituents. (This may require the use of Selected Ion Monitoring for polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons for sites where they are a contaminant of potential concern.) ____ Action levels for Analyte-Specific Closure have been met All concentrations are below the action levels for analyte-specific closure in all confirmation samples. ____ Residual TPH concentrations are not indicative of NAPL migration All concentrations of TPH are below the levels indicative of NAPL migration for the soil type at the site as published by the American Petroleum Institute in Appendix C ____ Land use assumptions are supported and protective If the higher action levels for industrial or commercial exposure scenarios are used at the site, information presented by the facility owner or operator should demonstrate that future land use will remain industrial/commercial or is controlled through an environmental covenant. ____ Environmental Covenant discussed when residual petroleum contamination exceeds 100 yds3

If greater than 100 yds3 of petroleum impacted soil is to remain on the site, an environmental covenant should be considered and discussed with a supervisor to determine whether future management of petroleum contaminated soils needs to be controlled. ____ Destruction certificates or disposal certificates provided for all excavated soil All soil above 100 mg/kg TPH that was excavated as a result of corrective action or abatement actions and that has been taken off-site for treatment or disposal has been accounted for with disposal or destruction certificates. If soil has been treated on-site and remains on-site in accordance with an approved corrective action plan, this requirement may be marked N/A and considered satisfied.

NDEP, Petroleum in Soils Closure Checklists, “A thru K Closure” Checklist Page 1 of 1


“A thru K Closure” Checklist


Facility ID:

Date:

A-thru-K Closure: concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons and petroleum constituents above screening levels may be left in place based on a site-specific analysis of the A-thru-K factors listed in the corrective action regulations to show that known residual concentrations are still protective even if they are above default action levels.

A thru K Closure Checklist All Requirements In Grey Must Be Met

____ “A Thru K” closure request presented in an acceptable format The “A Thru K” presents a coherent, defensible argument for closing the site with contamination above action levels, and it includes all supporting data, figures, and calculations relied on in the argument. ____ Data quality is sufficient to make defensible determinations about protectiveness The “A thru K” analysis is based on data of sufficient quality as determined either by adherence to an approved quality assurance project plan or to generally accepted standard operating procedures for data collection and analysis. ____ All constituents of concern have been identified and properly addressed The “A thru K” closure request addresses all constituents of concern at the site. Constituents of potential concern include all the constituents associated with the petroleum product that has been released; constituents of concern include all the constituents of potential concern that exceed health-based standards (Table 1 of Appendix B). ____ All exposure pathways have been examined and properly addressed The “A thru K” closure request examines all exposure pathways and determine whether they are incomplete, potentially complete, or complete at the site. ____ The direct contact exposure pathway is demonstrated to be incomplete Contamination in the top 6 feet at a site must be below analyte-specific action levels (Table 1 of Appendix B) or demonstrated to be inaccessible both to excavation/treatment and to direct contact by receptors. ____ Petroleum saturated soils have been remediated or removed to a reasonable extent The facility owner or operator must make reasonable efforts to treat or remove soils that are indicative of NAPL formation or migration (API, Appendix C) as a step to minimize further degradation of subsurface soils or potential impacts to groundwater. The reasonableness of efforts may consider the vicinity of structures, depths of contamination, or remoteness of the location. If petroleum concentrations above screening levels for NAPL migration remain at the site, vadose zone modeling or calculations must demonstrate that groundwater impacts will not occur or will be sufficiently controlled. ____ Environmental Covenant discussed when residual petroleum contamination exceeds 100 yds3 If greater than 100 yds3 of petroleum impacted soil is to remain on the site, an environmental covenant should be considered and discussed with a supervisor to determine whether future management of petroleum contaminated soils needs to be controlled through a covenant. The covenant may also stipulate specific land use practices, engineering controls, and periodic review and reporting to NDEP to affirm maintenance of the engineering and institutional controls.

NDEP, Petroleum in Soils Closure Checklists, “ASTM RBCA Closure” Checklist Page 1 of 1


“ASTM RBCA Closure” Checklist


Facility ID:

Date:

ASTM RBCA Closure: all concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons and constituents are below Site Specific Target Levels established through a Tier II or Tier III analysis conducted consistent with the ASTM Risk-Based Corrective Action method E1739-95 or equivalent.

ASTM RBCA Closure Checklist All Requirements In Grey Must Be Met

____ ASTM RBCA conducted in accordance with Method E1739-95 The facility owner/operator and their consultant have submitted sufficient information to the NDEP and in a format that allows the NDEP to determine whether the Method was followed appropriately. ____ Data quality is sufficient to make defensible determinations about protectiveness The analyses in the ASTM RBCA are based on data of sufficient quality as determined either by adherence to an approved quality assurance project plan or to generally accepted standard operating procedures for data collection and analysis. ____ All constituents of concern have been properly addressed in the RBCA analysis Procedures in the ASTM RBCA method are followed for the identification of contaminants of concern. Site Specific Target Levels are developed for all contaminants of concern. ____ All exposure pathways have been examined and properly addressed Procedures in the ASTM RBCA method are followed for the identification of completed exposure pathways and the Site Specific Target Levels are established based on the most conservative exposure pathway calculation for the site. ____ Confirmation sampling shows constituents of concern to be below Site Specific Target Levels Samples show that residual contamination is below Site Specific Target Levels developed for the site. The density and quality of samples is sufficient to demonstrate achievement of Site Specific Target Levels. ____ Residual TPH contamination addressed either directly or indirectly in the ASTM RBCA Residual TPH contamination is shown to be unlikely to further degrade subsurface soils or groundwater through either the development of SSTLs for TPH or through the excavation and treatment of soils above screening levels for NAPL migration published by the API in their June 2000 “Soil and Groundwater Research Bulletin” (Appendix C). ____ Environmental Covenant discussed when residual petroleum contamination exceeds 100 yds3 If greater than 100 yds3 of petroleum impacted soil is to remain on the site, an environmental covenant should be considered and discussed with a supervisor to determine whether future management of petroleum contaminated soils needs to be controlled through a covenant. The covenant may also stipulate specific land use practices, engineering controls, and periodic review and reporting to NDEP to affirm maintenance of the engineering and institutional controls.



Appendix B Tables

NDEP, Petroleum in Soils Closure Checklists, “Analyte-Specific Closure” Table Page 2 of 1

NDEP Petroleum In Soils Closure Table 1: “Analyte-Specific Closure” Levelsa

Analyte Name Preparation/

Analytical Methodb

Gasoline

Diesel

Heating oil

Jet Fuel Residentialc (mg/kg)

Industriald (mg/kg)

Acenaphthene 3540e/8270C or D X 3500 45000 Anthracene 3540/8270C or D X X 17000 --f

Benzene 5035/8260B X X X 4g 1.2 5.1 Benzo(a)anthracene 3540/8270C or Dh X X 0.15 2.9 Benzo(a)pyrene 3540/8270C or Dh -i X X 0.015 0.29 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 3540/8270C or Dh X X 0.15 2.9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 3540/8270C or Dh X X 1.5 29 Chrysene 3540/8270C or D X X 15 290 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 3540/8270C or Dh X X 0.015 0.29 Ethylbenzene 5035/8260B X X X 4 5.8 25 Fluoranthene 3540/8270C or D X X 2300 30000 Fluorene 3540/8270C or D X X 2300 30000 Ideno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene 3540/8270C or Dh X X 0.15 2.9 Methyl t-butyl ether (MTBE) 5035/8260B X 47 210 1-Methylnapthalene 3540/8270C or D X X X 17 73 2-Methylnapthalene 3540/8270C or D X X X 230 3000 Naphthalene 5035/8260B or 3540/8270C orD X X X X 3.8 17 Pyrene 3540/8270C or D X X 1700 23000 Styrene 5035/8260B X 6000 35000 Toluene 5035/8260B X X X 4 4900 47000 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 5035/8260B or 3540/8270C orD -i X X 58 240 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 5035/8260B or 3540/8270C orD -i X 4 780 12000 Xylene (mixture) 5035/8260B X X X 580 2500 Notes: a—The use of this table is subject to the general and specific provisions listed in the Petroleum in in Soils Closure Checklists. b—The EPA Methods listed for each constituent are accepted for use by the Division. Other laboratory methods may be acceptable to the

Division but must be pre-approved prior to use. c—Residential screening levels for all constituents are based on numbers developed by the US EPA as the “Regional Screening Levels for

Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites” for a default residential exposure scenario. d—Industrial screening levels for all constituents are based on numbers developed by the US EPA as the “Regional Screening Levels for

Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites” for a default exposure scenario. Industrial screening levels can be allowed at industrial and commercial sites where a case officer is comfortable that the reasonable expectation of future land use is industrial or commercial; if there is any doubt about future land use or surrounding land use, an environmental covenant should be considered in order to control the land-use assumption or additional corrective action should be undertaken to meet residential screening levels.

e—EPA Method 3550 for ultrasonic extraction is also an acceptable method with any 8270C or D analysis in this table. When using method 3550 it is necessary to determine whether the low-concentration procedure or moderate/high-concentration procedure is appropriate. The low-concentration procedure is appropriate if anticipated concentrations are below 20 mg/kg.

f—Screening level is above soil saturation value and is therefore not applicable in an industrial scenario. g—A differentiation is made between JP-4 and other formulations of jet fuel. Where a constituent is marked “4”, that constituent should only

be sampled if the source of contamination is suspected to be JP-4. An “X” indicates that the constituent should be sampled for any formulation of jet fuel.

h—An optional procedure in EPA Method 8270 for lower detection limits on polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) is Selected Ion Monitoring (SIM). In order to achieve detection limits below residential screening levels and some industrial screening levels, the NDEP is currently recommending the use of SIM on confirmation samples for PAHs.

i—The NDEP is currently evaluating the prevalence of this constituent in gasoline formulations and its usefulness in determining exposure risks at gasoline release sites. At this time, the NDEP is not requiring the analysis of this constituent for confirmation at gasoline-only sites.

NDEP, Petroleum in Soils Closure Checklists, “A thru K” Table

NDEP Petroleum in Soils Closure Table 2: Types of information that may be appropriate for an A thru K Closure

Simple Sites Small volume of residual soils

Low concentrations Incomplete exposure pathways

Qualitative analysis

Complex Sites Large volume of residual soils

High concentrations Complete exposure pathways

Quantitative analysis

(a) The depth of any groundwater A narrative of contaminant locations in relation to

the top-most water table from site-specific investigations or reasonably accurate, published sources

An understanding of all productive saturated zones underlying the site

First-order fate and transport calculations Site comparisons of contaminant migration to

groundwater from similar sites in the vicinity

Multi-phase vadose zone modeling of contaminant transport to the top-most water table

Identification of all nearby sources of hydraulic head such as areas of heavy irrigation, infiltration basins, leaking utilities, etc

Analysis of historic water table fluctuations

(b) The distance to irrigation wells or wells for drinking water Inventory of all wells within a ¼-mile, ½-mile, and

1-mile radius Narrative of general groundwater consumption in

the vicinity of the site, i.e. prevalence of irrigation, domestic use, and municipal supply

General depths of drinking water and irrigation extraction from area groundwater

Construction details of wells in the vicinity of the site

Saturated zone modeling of potential groundwater contaminant transport with established wells as target points

Environmental covenant on groundwater use to preclude future well installations

(c) The type of soil that is contaminated A discussion of soil type and its relation to

migration of contaminants to groundwater or exposure of residual contaminants due to erosion or runoff

Site lithology and the presence or absence of aquitards

Quality of imported fill

Derivation or collection of soil properties for vadose zone modeling including effective porosity, bulk density, soil organic carbon, and water content

Biological activity of the soil and biodegradation of residual contaminants

Environmental covenant which precludes export of site soils for use as fill in other locations

(d) The annual precipitation A narrative of precipitation and storm events

typical for the site and its relation to vadose zone migration and surface runoff

Infiltration calculations Presence of site features that may act equivalently

to engineered controls or caps to prevent run-off or infiltration, such as paved surfaces

Identification of any major sources of additional hydraulic head in the vicinity of the site

Use of site-specific precipitation regime in vadose zone modeling

Drainage analysis for a 24-hour 25-year storm event

Engineered controls for prevention of run-off or infiltration

Use of designed and maintained evapo-transpirative covers


(e) The type of waste or substance that was released For petroleum releases, the specific petroleum

product involved in the release should be known or deduced based on site sampling

The age of the release and the amount of weathering of petroleum contamination should be determined

While the NDEP is already aware of the mobility, toxicity, and amenability to treatment of most petroleum products, it should be shown how these factors were considered as part of a determination to leave contamination in-place

TPH fractional analysis for use to model total petroleum hydrocarbon behavior in the subsurface

Leach tests of site samples as an input to vadose and saturated zone modeling

(f) The extent of the contamination As a general condition of closure, all sites should

have an understanding of the lateral and vertical extent of remaining contaminants

Simple mass calculations for remaining contaminants, contaminants removed through corrective action, and contaminants released to the environment, if known

Identification and extent of any contaminants at concentrations that indicate potential soil saturation

Stratigraphic analysis of subsurface concentrations for a conceptual model of historic fate and transport of petroleum constituents in the soil

Modeling of potential LNAPL formation and movement in the vadose zone

Mass flux potential to groundwater

(g) The present and potential use for the land An operational site history including present use

and recently past uses A discussion of property uses in the vicinity of the

site Property zoning Identification or location of overlying or adjacent

Redevelopment Zones

Deed restrictions Environmental covenant containing specific land

use restrictions Durable engineering controls intended to prevent

future exposures regardless of land use

(h) The preferred routes of migration A complete Conceptual Site Model including

migration pathways and receptors Vapor intrusion screening

Identification of preferential paths for migration for any and all pathways, such as utility corridors, vaults, unsealed well bores, discontinuities in aquatards, sand lenses, etc.

Detailed vapor intrusion studies and risk assessment

(i) The location of structures or impediments If petroleum constituents above health-based

action levels are left in-place in the top six feet of soil, a fully detailed rationale should be given as to why the location of structures or impediments prevents corrective action

An updated, correctly scaled and labeled site map showing locations of residual contamination in relation to all surface structures and subsurface utilities, to the extent known

Structural analysis to support termination of excavation of contaminants at depth, including both the integrity of surrounding structure foundations and excavation shoring requirements


(j) The potential for a hazard related to fire, vapor or an explosion A professional judgment as to whether the volume

and concentrations of residual contamination would be able to produce flammable vapors

Identification of all adjacent subsurface, enclosed spaces, particularly any utility vaults or any other space with potential ignition sources

PID readings from any adjacent subsurface vaults, basements, crawlspaces, or sub-basements

Installation of vapor barrier, ventilation or recovery systems

(k) Any other information specifically related to the site which the director determines is appropriate Recalcitrance of site contaminants to past

corrective actions Data Quality Assessment in accordance with

federal guidelines



Appendix C American Petroleum Institute

“Soil & Groundwater Research Bulletin” June 2000 Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (NAPL) Mobility Limits in Soil

closure checklist & closure citation guidelines · ndep, petroleum in soils closure checklists,...

Documents